Someone else just mentioned their sister's wedding will be on a Friday evening. Also how much the HC are saving by doing that.

I’ve been married twice and both were Friday evening weddings. I think there is a big difference between Friday morning and Friday evening. A Friday evening wedding means that people can still go to work/school/whatever that day and still be able to attend the wedding. BTW in my case, Friday evening was not any cheaper than Saturday.

The difference here - at least at the venue where my DS's wedding will be in September (on a Friday afternoon), plus a few other local ones that I know of - isn't that the per-person menu prices are any cheaper on Friday or Sunday. It's that the total-spending minimum charge is less. If it's, say, $ 2000 more on the Saturday, then you'd have to "find" 40 or so more guests - or, just eat the premium charge. It could therefore be completely impractical to host a simple midafternoon cocktail reception during peak times, such as a Saturday in August. You'd have to have 400+ guests to make the math work, and that's more than the venue can hold.

We got married on a Monday, and it wasn't to save money (the venue, church and everything else cost the same no matter what day of the week we used them). Most wedding details didn't matter that much to me (dress, flowers, photographer, etc.) so I went with what was the best option for our budget. However, the date was extremely important. We got married on our anniversary. At our reception, I told our guests that, essentially, we were celebrating our 4th anniversary by getting married and sharing our anniversary celebration with our family and friends. It happened to be a US holiday so most local guests had the day off. Distant guests would've needed to take time off to travel anyway so getting married on a weekday really didn't make a difference (if we'd gotten married on a Saturday, they would've had to take off at least one day of work; getting married on a Monday holiday means they had to take off at least one day of work).

DH's cousin is getting married on a Friday around six hours from our house so we will have to take off two days of work (we're taking off three and factoring in visiting my family since they live about an hour further south from where we'll be). DH and I are fine with it. I couldn't imagine calling a couple rude for getting married on a day that they choose, as long as they didn't expect us to bend to their will (which is not the case for DH's cousin and wasn't the case for DH and me).

We got married on a Monday, and it wasn't to save money (the venue, church and everything else cost the same no matter what day of the week we used them). Most wedding details didn't matter that much to me (dress, flowers, photographer, etc.) so I went with what was the best option for our budget.

These two statements seem contradictory. If you went with the best option for your budget, it would seem to be valid to say you chose that option to save money.

Quote

We got married on our anniversary. At our reception, I told our guests that, essentially, we were celebrating our 4th anniversary by getting married and sharing our anniversary celebration with our family and friends.

We got married on a Monday, and it wasn't to save money (the venue, church and everything else cost the same no matter what day of the week we used them). Most wedding details didn't matter that much to me (dress, flowers, photographer, etc.) so I went with what was the best option for our budget.

These two statements seem contradictory. If you went with the best option for your budget, it would seem to be valid to say you chose that option to save money.

Per bolded -- as I stated, the cost of these particular things didn't change whether it was a Monday, Saturday or any other day of the week. I don't see the contradiction. Rent the church Monday? $XXX. Rent the church Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the hall Monday? $XXX. Rent the hall Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days Saturday to Tuesday? $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days from Friday to Monday? Same $XXX.

We got married on our anniversary. At our reception, I told our guests that, essentially, we were celebrating our 4th anniversary by getting married and sharing our anniversary celebration with our family and friends.

I think a weekday morning wedding for 200 is what makes it seem strange. I mean, when is the last time you went to any social event for 200 on a weekday morning?

A weekday wedding for 20, not so much -- like a City Hall ceremony or a private ceremony followed by a lovely lunch. For someone that I was so close to that I am in the very innermost circle, I'd happily inconvenience myself.

I'm not saying it's rude (it isn't), just that I agree with those posters who say that it seems like trying to have it both ways: trying to invite all those people, but doing it a time that is very inconvenient for most people, especially those who must travel.

I don't see how you can prevent people feeling like it's sort of communicating that you don't care if people can come or even that you hope they don't. They won't necessarily, but they might. And they might think what a poster pointed out on the first page: that you are shifting the cost of having a big wedding to them, by having it at a time that saves you money, but costs them more in money and/or inconvenience.

Be very careful not to try to make it better by telling people you understand if they can't come in a way that makes it seem like it's no big deal to you either way. I know that your intent would be to make sure you aren't making them feel guilty. But it can easily turn into sounding like "No big deal if you are at our wedding." That doesn't make people feel like they are very important to you.

Having your wedding when/where/how you want to have it is not rude. Changing the wedding location to better accommodate your guests is above and beyond (sacrificing your desires for theirs). Knowing some people may not be able to attend your wedding (which could happen regardless what date/time you choose) is not rude.

Guests complaining about what you are offering is rude. Guests demanding the wedding location be moved to their city to accommodate them is rude. Guests expecting based on the time of the wedding (afternoon-dinnertime) that there must be a full fancy dinner and dancing and booze? Rude.

I think a late-morning ceremony with brunch/luncheon to follow sounds wonderful! Sure, some people may have to take a day off work to attend, but as other posters have said, that's often the case with Saturday weddings as well. OP, you've saved your guests the travel time, airfare, hotel, baby/dogsitters by moving the location to their city. Because their city costs significantly more, you've adjusted the time so you can still afford to entertain your guests as you'd like. Sure, some people may decide the event is not worth the inconvenience, but that's on them.

OP and her fiancé are hosting a party. Their invitations inform invitees what to expect. Invitees then decide whether or not to come to the party. I wouldn't dream of telling a bride/groom their party is not up to my expectations, and demand they change it for me. It's their party, their celebration, their wedding, not mine. I can choose not to attend.

OP, don't worry about pleasing every last person. Decide what's important to you and have your celebration. The worst thing about weddings I think, is all the stress of planning it, which is amplified when you try to make everyone happy. I hope you can make your plans, and when the day comes, relax and enjoy yourselves, as the day is about you, celebrating the start of your new life together with your partner.

the day is about you, celebrating the start of your new life together with your partner.

Yes, of course it is. So is every wedding.

But a wedding reception, even though it is in the couple's honor, is still a party. So the hosts still have the duty of hospitality, which includes considering guests' convenience. Not making it the #1 factor, but up there.

That doesn't make this wedding rude or inhospitable. But I agree with the poster who compared it to a mountaintop or sunrise wedding. Not verboten or rude, but probably a better choice for a small, similarly inclined or particularly devoted group than for 200. When you are planning for that many, you need to start thinking less of your own preferences and more about what will work for your group.

It's just one of those situations where, IMO, trying too hard to have things both ways in the end doesn't work as well as just biting the bullet and choosing one way and letting the other go.

Per bolded -- as I stated, the cost of these particular things didn't change whether it was a Monday, Saturday or any other day of the week. I don't see the contradiction. Rent the church Monday? $XXX. Rent the church Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the hall Monday? $XXX. Rent the hall Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days Saturday to Tuesday? $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days from Friday to Monday? Same $XXX.

Yes, I understood that. But then you went on to say that you went with the best option for your budget. If they're all the same, how can Monday be better for your budget than the others?

Per bolded -- as I stated, the cost of these particular things didn't change whether it was a Monday, Saturday or any other day of the week. I don't see the contradiction. Rent the church Monday? $XXX. Rent the church Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the hall Monday? $XXX. Rent the hall Saturday? Same $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days Saturday to Tuesday? $XXX. Rent the dishes, utensils, cups, etc. for three days from Friday to Monday? Same $XXX.

Yes, I understood that. But then you went on to say that you went with the best option for your budget. If they're all the same, how can Monday be better for your budget than the others?

Powers &8^]

You're misreading her post. She's saying she chose the best hall for her budget, the best flowers for her budget, etc. She didn't choose the day of the week based on budget.

We did this mainly for financial reasons, the hall costs only half of what it would if we'd done a Saturday reception and because we are doing a lunch time wedding and not serving alcohol they agreed that we didn't need to hire security, which saves us $25 an hour.

We did this mainly for financial reasons, the hall costs only half of what it would if we'd done a Saturday reception and because we are doing a lunch time wedding and not serving alcohol they agreed that we didn't need to hire security, which saves us $25 an hour.

I believe Lt. Powers was questioning the post in this thread about socalval's wedding, not the OP's.

We did this mainly for financial reasons, the hall costs only half of what it would if we'd done a Saturday reception and because we are doing a lunch time wedding and not serving alcohol they agreed that we didn't need to hire security, which saves us $25 an hour.

I believe Lt. Powers was questioning the post in this thread about socalval's wedding, not the OP's.

the day is about you, celebrating the start of your new life together with your partner.

Yes, of course it is. So is every wedding.

But a wedding reception, even though it is in the couple's honor, is still a party. So the hosts still have the duty of hospitality, which includes considering guests' convenience. Not making it the #1 factor, but up there.

That doesn't make this wedding rude or inhospitable. But I agree with the poster who compared it to a mountaintop or sunrise wedding. Not verboten or rude, but probably a better choice for a small, similarly inclined or particularly devoted group than for 200. When you are planning for that many, you need to start thinking less of your own preferences and more about what will work for your group.

It's just one of those situations where, IMO, trying too hard to have things both ways in the end doesn't work as well as just biting the bullet and choosing one way and letting the other go.

Yes, they are hosting a party, and obviously a good host(ess) takes into account their guests' comfort and such, but a guest does not dictate how the party happens or what the host pays for. A guest may say "that location doesn't work for me" for whatever reason, or, "I don't like mushrooms", but does not order the location be moved for their convenience above all others, nor the entire menu changed to their preference.

The guests in this case got the party moved to their city. Because of the move, OP changed the time so she could still afford to properly host the guests at her party. Now guests complain about the time change? Are the complaining guests footing the bill for this shindig? No. Is OP doing her darndest to make this party work for the majority of those she wants present on her special day? Of course. What I'm saying is you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. In the end, OP has to do what she is comfortable paying for, what works best for her and for the majority of guests, and let it go. It won't work perfectly for 200 people, it might work quite well for 100 and for another 75 with some changes to their own schedules. Some people may not be able to make it. I don't believe this would make the hostess a bad one, it's just really difficult to make something work for a group, very much more so for a really large group.

The day is about the bride and groom, and they've invited their family and friends to celebrate with them. They can only do their best to provide a party their guests will enjoy, and hopefully everyone has fun and leaves happy.